Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

On May 27, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Michael Kifer wrote:
> Peter,
>
> It is no big deal to be unitary by restricting the language to Datalog.
> You don't even need to limit it to a function-free sublanguage. In our
> roadmap the language was unitary also up to this point.
>
> The issue is how to build such a system in an extensible way so that it
> could be extended to satisfy most of the RIF requirements.

Which requirements?

I'm interested to hear more about how the proposals address the
various (candidate) requirements.

I mostly watch at a distance, but I try to get swapped in before
each ftf meeting.

I see there have been several evaluations of rule systems and
languages, but they seem to be with respect to an "arrangement 
framework"
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework
that's separate from the use cases and requirements. I'd much prefer
that the framework were merged into the list of candidate requirements,
which seems to be...
  http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints

The best way to figure out the requirements, it seems to me, is to 
actually
use them to evaluate proposals and systems.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 14:07:47 UTC